On questions of war and peace, we’re a nation divided

The gulf is huge between Stephen Harper’s followers and everyone else over the sort of ideological pose Canada should strike on the world stage.

These stark solitudes were on display Monday night as Harper, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau faced off in the Munk Debate on foreign policy, the last English language debate in the run-up to the Oct. 19 election.

Harper had the incumbent’s advantage of being able to drop into the conversation that he has the numbers of Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama on speed dial. And he name-dropped effectively, reinforcing his claim to pursuing a hard-headed and hard-nosed foreign policy built on a strict interpretation of Canadian values.

Trudeau and Mulcair responded by affirming their loyalty to what many see as traditional Canadian international values: blue helmet peacekeeping, an open door to refugees, an emphasis on foreign aid, and playing a central and enthusiastic role in the United Nations and other world bodies.

Harper’s stance is finding some resonance — but only some — with voters in an election which — unlike most Canadian elections — is seeing international affairs play a significant role in the debate. This is largely because of the refugee crisis spilling out of Syria and Iraq, where Canada has air and ground forces deployed in the alliance fighting the jihadists of the Islamic State.

A poll by the Angus Reid organization released before Monday’s debate shows that, overall, 41 per cent of the sample felt Harper is best suited to represent Canada on the world stage, against 34 per cent for Mulcair and 25 per cent for Trudeau.
Actually, the poll finds that voters are quite particular when it comes to the issues on which they trust Harper to represent Canada — and the ones on which they don’t.

They trust Harper on security and combating terrorism — 50 per cent to second placed Mulcair at 30 per cent — and they give him primacy on pursuing international trade — 44 per cent to Mulcair’s 33 per cent and Trudeau’s 23 per cent.

A major failure of Harper’s foreign policy is that while his cynical opinion of the UN and other international bodies may be justified, he hasn’t offered a working alternative.

But when it comes to the environment and human rights, Mulcair has the clear advantage in the minds of the voters. On representing Canada on climate change issues, 43 per cent of those polled think Mulcair is the man, against 30 per cent for Harper. And on human rights, 36 per cent feel most comfortable with Mulcair representing Canada against 33 per cent for Harper. In the public’s mind, Trudeau is an also-ran on all the main issues of foreign policy.

It’s in the details of this poll, however, that the depth of the ideological rift over Canadian international values becomes evident — between the Harper Tories on one hand and the Liberals and NDP on the other.

Around half of committed Liberal and NDP voters think that climate change should be the dominant international issue for the Canadian government. Only 14 per cent of Conservatives think that way. For them — 46 per cent — terrorism is top of the agenda, while only 25 per cent of Liberals and 20 per cent of NDPers agree.

The gap in perception is equally wide on the overall view of Canada’s standing in the world after nearly a decade of Harper in power.

Among Tories, 48 per cent think Harper has improved Canada’s reputation around the world, while 34 per cent think the country’s standing is about the same as it was 10 years ago. Among NDPers and Liberals, just under 60 per cent think Canada’s reputation has gone to the dogs with Harper at the helm.

The conflicting views are equally strong on specific areas of foreign affairs such as development aid, military power and diplomatic influence. Only on trade competitiveness is there anything close to a consensus over the Harper government’s record.

But when all is said and done, what was missing almost entirely from Monday’s Munk debate was any mention of the future — of the fact that global patterns of power and influence are changing dramatically day by day. China and Asia, for example, were not mentioned beyond some narrowly-focused bickering over the domestic implications of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal now being negotiated. On the other hand, Putin’s Russia and the Middle East — both areas which, it can be argued, are of marginal long-term interest to Canada — got lavish attention.

Canada’s national interests and its natural alliances are in a state of flux. That transition is destined to become more intense as the United States’ moment of unipolar power grows smaller and smaller in the rear view mirror, and the “old stock,” blood-brother bonds with the European Union decrease in significance.

A major failure of Harper’s foreign policy is that while his cynical opinion of the UN and other international bodies may be justified, he hasn’t offered a working alternative. Former Conservative prime minister and foreign minister Joe Clark has set out a clear and convincing agenda for what Canada should be doing to construct a new community of like-minded middle powers. Harper hasn’t only shown disdain for any such communal activism — he has gone out of his way to tether Canada to some of the most marginal of international players.

Harper has made Israel, Ukraine and Saudi Arabia the focus of his foreign policy. It’s very hard to imagine any circumstances in which these three musketeers would find common cause among themselves, and with Canada.

Jonathan Manthorpe is the author of “Forbidden Nation: A History of Taiwan,” published by Palgrave-Macmillan. He has been a foreign correspondent and international affairs columnist for nearly 40 years. He was European bureau chief for the Toronto Star and then Southam News in the late 1970s and the 1980s. In 1989 he was appointed Africa correspondent by Southam News and in 1993 was posted to Hong Kong to cover Asia. For the last few years he has been based in Vancouver, writing international affairs columns for what is now the Postmedia Group. He left the group last year and now writes for a range of newspapers and websites. [email protected]

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.